Journalism and sexism in the games industry

[Meshugger]

 

 

What the hell is redpiller(ing?)

 

A quick primer to redpill.

 

I might need brain bleach now, thank you very much.

 

That reminds me

 

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/19/julien-blanc-barred-entering-uk-pick-up-artist

 

 

Hollywood has embraced such ideas since time millennial

 

[Longknife]

Oh yes. That site is full of even juicier stuff, like how all women are naturally submissive and choking them improves sex life or something.

 

It deserves to be visited and mocked mercilessly.

 

 

Erm...you are aware both of those are pretty common fetishes?

 

Not saying ALL women like them or that the site is amazing (I'm unfamiliar with it), just not clear based on the context of your post if you're finding it horrible that they encourage guys to just start choking women without discussion or if you find the act itself disgusting or the suggestion most women are submissive to be disgusting.

 

If it's the latter, I got some bad news for you. There's a lot of wild fetishes out there that don't seem to make sense and yet people are fond of them. Likewise, as someone who's fascinated with psychology, sex and sex psychology, I actually very FREQUENTLY discuss kinks with female friends, and I daresay 90% of them are submissive, another 8% are either and maybe 2% are dominant.

 

   That's sort of why I was at odds with feminism even beforehand and before Gamergate: because plenty of women are perfectly happy with their position in life and would only be annoyed by feminism trying to "save them." For clarity when I say "position in life," I mean some women do enjoy being housewives, A LOT of women really really enjoy the feeling of being protected by a man, but those same women would of course be pissed off if they earned less than a male counterpart. It's not that they don't want equality, it's just that feminism oftentimes preaches an assertiveness, ambition and a level of responsibility that many women simply don't feel comfortable engaging in. Why? Because some women - like men - are shy or do not handle leadership positions well so of course they don't like it. This is not a gender issue, this is an individual issue, as plenty of men are exactly the same.

 

   Fun fact: if you look at those "satisfaction with life" polls done every so often, there was a correlation between a drop in women's satisfaction of life and when the feminist movement first began. The obvious answer is that feminism also brought about more responsibility on the shoulders of women, and of course with responsibility comes stress. You can make of that what you will as I don't find the notion women should "man up" (hey not my fault the phrase uses man in the line ) and accept the burden of more responsibility to be crazy, but at the same time I do think this highlights that "privilege" is a two-way street. For example a man could get frustrated that society expects him to be the pursuer and to ask a woman out because that man is very very shy and struggles to do such things, whereas a woman on the other hand could be quite confident and be frustrated that she's made to wait, lest she be called a ****. You may say "yes but feminism will change all that!" and I would sincerely doubt that as feminism provides no working plan to change this mentality. Change the culture? Yeah seems simple enough, but another study actually suggests that "**** shaming" for example is instinctual. Why? There was a time when we were cavemen and the wilderness was dangerous, and you know someone that would struggle in that wilderness? A pregnant woman. So women "bartered" and offered sex for protection. You know what could get a lot of pregnant women killed inadvertedly...? A **** passing out sexual favors for free. Thus, we internalized it and learned to **** shame for the sake of the species. Makes sense, no? I mean why would men ever participate in **** shaming when we BENEFIT from sluts and slutty behavior unless there was something more at work in our minds? Today that mechanic holds almost no purpose as a pregnant woman is more than capable of surviving on her own, yet we as society still **** shame.

 

 

   So yeah, sometimes I think feminism's notion that it can overwrite well over 10,000 years of history, culture and instincts are nothing short of farfetched. It's a dream that'll never occur because doing so would require quietly shushing such classical works like Taming of the Shrew, the Importance of Being Earnest, and not discussing some of the details of culture existing during the time of Joan of Arc, of Susan B. Anthony or the fact that the first 43 or whatever odd presidents we're at have all been male.

  Moreover, feminism doesn't often address many women who are perfectly happy with the way things are. FFS many women willingly become strippers and porn stars and love every minute of it. I have a friend who's paying her tuition right now by stripping and she loves the job. There's also been blatant "issues" where some girls who do such jobs to get through university discover they can make more money doing that than doing the work they studied for and got a degree in, and thus end up staying. Yes, I realize there's "sex positive" feminists, but for the sake of GG I'm discussing the ones GG is encountering, who definitely don't seem sex positive.

 

  Quite bluntly? I have a lot of respect for Charles Darwin. You adapt to survive and the "strongest" survive with the "strongest" being those most capable of adapting to their surroundings. Quite bluntly, sometimes when I hear a feminist rant I hear someone who failed to adapt to their role appropriately and thus they stress and complain about the injustice of it all. I'm not disagreeing the injustice of it all is at times disgusting or disheartening, but I am disagreeing that whining and complaining is the way to cope with it: you need to move forward.

   Likewise, am I suggesting everyone sit quietly in their seat that society has given them and never speak out? Not at all: history is marked with countless revolutions that actually brought us further and brought us forward, bringing about undeniable progress.....but that's the issue: feminism needs to convince society it is bringing about undeniable progress, otherwise it's quid pro quo, and no one is going to bother changing the fundamentals of society as we know it just for a quid pro quo that benefits you. That would not be "better," that would just be a quid pro quo that relieves you of your stress of trying to ask a guy out as a woman while simultaneously providing a woman who enjoys being a stripper with more stress. (pure example, of course) 

 

 

 

That's part of the fundamental problem of feminism: it claims there are universal answers to making women happier (beyond the basic things like pay equality which are no brainers and anyone would get behind that), completely failing to realize women are nothing but a gender of individuals, and just like individual men, they have varying dreams, goals and desires. Honestly, it sounds as childish as...when I was in high school I accidently (long story) won a poetry contest and that had a bunch of guys convinced I was good with women. I proceeded to get all these guys asking me to write poems for girls on their behalf, as well as asking me the secret to women and "what women truly want." The idea that there's a universal answer that will get ALL women in the palm of your hand is cringeworthy nonsense that simply paints the guy as socially awkward and an idiot. So how is it any different when a feminist claims to know the secret to making ALL women happier...?

 

 

Anyways I've rambled quite a bit. If you don't think most women are submissive...? My advice? Go talk to them lulz. I'd actually ask my female friends to come and post here, but realistically I know no woman is going to feel comfortable admitting she's submissive to a bunch of strangers in an online community.

 

Oh, and if you happen to be interested in a woman that's into bondage, go to the UK. Seriously, I dunno how a fetish ended up practically being cultural (I assume the men like it as well, and that KiA mod who lost his position and got smeared was an example of a UK guy liking it), but by god I've yet to meet a british woman who wasn't crazy about that stuff...You can learn a lot from actually talking to women.

 

 

 

EDIT:  Oh and just for clarity, the repeatedly censored word is a four letter word relevant to sex that's often applied moreso to women that begins with s.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Longknife

[Meshugger]

You know, could've just linked the sales figures for 50 shades of gray and making the same point

[Longknife]

You know, could've just linked the sales figures for 50 shades of gray and making the same point

 

I LIKE TYPING THO. C:

 

 

You know what amazes me is psychologists did a study and found that BDSM, bondage and rape fantasies were actually very very common? It amazed me not so much because of the study, but because apparently the DSM-V classifies these as "sexually deviant" behavior and labels them as abnormal. Really amazed me to hear the DSM-V, the authority on all things psychology, was blissfully unaware that those might be the most common fetishes on earth. It's like wtf happened and when did people stop talking to other people to get information? When did we hit the point where actually polling people and just asking them was fancy enough to be considered a "study?" If that's the case I've been conducting a "study" for almost 10 years now, and I'm happy to say my study correlates well with theirs and reinforces their findings.

 

Oh, and I've also heard 50 Shades is horrendously written (some claiming worse than Twilight) so that only reinforces that the sex is what sells that book, imo.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Longknife

[Meshugger]

I think all that happened by the time they didn't become what they dreamed of and became journalists instead.

[Malcador]

Alan is a  very formidable debating adversary but he also makes his points in very reasonable way

 

He makes loads of sense and is very informed, people could learn a lot from his insights

Yes, I am aware you are an immense fan of his, but making points reasonably isn't all that special, even shirty here does so, well his addiction to sarcasm aside.

[Longknife]

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2ms8zo/large_publications_time_guardian_et_al_condemn/

 

 

[Meshugger]

 

It doesn't end there! Adult humans appropriate milk from FEMALE cows as they grow older. Having served their purpose, the milk of human women is ignored and instead the lustful men forcefully annex milk from a cow's udders, a reminder of their servitude to men and the human woman's servitude to babies.

 

[Malcador]

The article at the Guardian was good, read it yesterday. Makes a good point about falling into the trap of hunting the symptoms rather than the cause.

[Nonek]

Well to be fair the cause of GG, the hatred that game journalists hold for their audience and anyone who does not kneel to their childish dogma, can't really be stopped. Most likely this is born from self loathing, and would require far more professional counselling and therapy than we are prepared or want to give. All we can really do is battle the symptoms, stop the unproven misogynistic, racist, sexist, homophobic and other smears that the SJF's feel they have a right to throw at the extremely diverse members of their audience and hopefully drive game journalism out of business. So that a proper, ethical, objective, unbiased and fit for purpose media can arise in their place.

 

Of course many people are pro-corruption and anti-consumer as we have seen even here, and want the current paradigm to remain, and the status quo not to be rocked. But it is the pro-consumer and anti-corruption voice that matters to me personally, as it ensures a better industry, with far better criticism, more respect for the consumers purchasing decisions and more innovative and forward looking games, rather than the degenerative alternatives we see that are currently championed.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Nonek

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Oh yes. That site is full of even juicier stuff, like how all women are naturally submissive and choking them improves sex life or something.

 

It deserves to be visited and mocked mercilessly.

 

 

Erm...you are aware both of those are pretty common fetishes?

 

Not saying ALL women like them or that the site is amazing (I'm unfamiliar with it), just not clear based on the context of your post if you're finding it horrible that they encourage guys to just start choking women without discussion or if you find the act itself disgusting or the suggestion most women are submissive to be disgusting.

 

 

 

My point was that a/ saying all women are biologically programmed to be submissive is disgusting - not only from a moral standpoint, but also because it's based on the worst kind of pseudo-scientific bull**** (the large majority of evopsych "research" is done by people who seem incapable of understanding basic research methodology and statistics), and b/ encouraging people to engage in an extremely dangerous area of BDSM play without first asking for consent is one of the most irresponsible bits of advice you could give, especially taken into account the fact that a sizeable part of the redpiller community is composed of sexually inexperienced young males.

 

 

 

   That's sort of why I was at odds with feminism even beforehand and before Gamergate: because plenty of women are perfectly happy with their position in life and would only be annoyed by feminism trying to "save them." For clarity when I say "position in life," I mean some women do enjoy being housewives, A LOT of women really really enjoy the feeling of being protected by a man, but those same women would of course be pissed off if they earned less than a male counterpart. It's not that they don't want equality, it's just that feminism oftentimes preaches an assertiveness, ambition and a level of responsibility that many women simply don't feel comfortable engaging in. Why? Because some women - like men - are shy or do not handle leadership positions well so of course they don't like it. This is not a gender issue, this is an individual issue, as plenty of men are exactly the same.

 

 

 

I honestly don't see your problem.

 

Aside from the extremely small minority of nutjobs going "gender traitor!" on the women who dare to enjoy straight sex and being a housewife, how exactly does a feminist endorsement of "traditionally masculine" life choices as not replacing, but being a viable alternative to living as a housewife threaten their way of life? I mean, a situation where the only viable lifepath for a woman is being a housewife sounds like a pretty crappy alternative to what feminism is offering.

 

 

 

Change the culture? Yeah seems simple enough, but another study actually suggests that "**** shaming" for example is instinctual. Why? There was a time when we were cavemen and the wilderness was dangerous, and you know someone that would struggle in that wilderness? A pregnant woman. So women "bartered" and offered sex for protection. You know what could get a lot of pregnant women killed inadvertedly...? A **** passing out sexual favors for free. Thus, we internalized it and learned to **** shame for the sake of the species. Makes sense, no? I mean why would men ever participate in **** shaming when we BENEFIT from sluts and slutty behavior unless there was something more at work in our minds? Today that mechanic holds almost no purpose as a pregnant woman is more than capable of surviving on her own, yet we as society still **** shame.

 

   So yeah, sometimes I think feminism's notion that it can overwrite well over 10,000 years of history, culture and instincts are nothing short of farfetched. It's a dream that'll never occur because doing so would require quietly shushing such classical works like Taming of the Shrew, the Importance of Being Earnest, and not discussing some of the details of culture existing during the time of Joan of Arc, of Susan B. Anthony or the fact that the first 43 or whatever odd presidents we're at have all been male.

 

 

 

Yeah, this whole argument here? Exactly the type of pseudo-scientific drivel I was talking about earlier. If I remember the study in question correctly (you didn't cite it, and what you describe isn't a study, it's a very logical-sounding theory supported by exactly zero pieces of factual evidence - but I do remember reading something like it in an actual study), it came to this conclusion based on behavior observed among a certain species of monkeys - but later studies have revealed the species it was based on to have about as much in common with humans, genetically speaking, as mouses do (which is still quite a lot, but when a very sizeable amount of genetic material is pretty much universal to all mammals, you can't really tout it as some kind of ultimate proof - after all, the differences between a human and a platypus are self-explanatory, despite the genetic commonalities).

 

Granted, I might be confusing it with a different study. There's a lot of bad science floating around in evopsych.

 

Also, you might wanna ask an actual historian about how life was like for women before our time. You might be surprised at the answer (spoiler warning: the popular concept of "they were basically slaves to their all-powerful male overlords" is a steaming pile of bull****).

 

 

 

 Moreover, feminism doesn't often address many women who are perfectly happy with the way things are. FFS many women willingly become strippers and porn stars and love every minute of it. I have a friend who's paying her tuition right now by stripping and she loves the job. There's also been blatant "issues" where some girls who do such jobs to get through university discover they can make more money doing that than doing the work they studied for and got a degree in, and thus end up staying. Yes, I realize there's "sex positive" feminists, but for the sake of GG I'm discussing the ones GG is encountering, who definitely don't seem sex positive.

 

 

 

I don't think feminists are using the word "sex positive" in the sense you mean it. That said, carceral feminists playing white savior and denying sex workers their voices and agency? Bad. However, I don't think Sarkeesian (who undoubtedly does have a problem with recognizing sex workers' autonomy, but has acknowledged it and is working on trying to improve her terminology) or Quinn or whoever else GG is against are among them.

 

 

 

  Quite bluntly? I have a lot of respect for Charles Darwin. You adapt to survive and the "strongest" survive with the "strongest" being those most capable of adapting to their surroundings. Quite bluntly, sometimes when I hear a feminist rant I hear someone who failed to adapt to their role appropriately and thus they stress and complain about the injustice of it all. I'm not disagreeing the injustice of it all is at times disgusting or disheartening, but I am disagreeing that whining and complaining is the way to cope with it: you need to move forward.

 

 

 

*squint* I don't think social darwinism is the philosophy we should build our society around.

 

 

 

That's part of the fundamental problem of feminism: it claims there are universal answers to making women happier (beyond the basic things like pay equality which are no brainers and anyone would get behind that), completely failing to realize women are nothing but a gender ofindividuals, and just like individual men, they have varying dreams, goals and desires. (...) So how is it any different when a feminist claims to know the secret to making ALL women happier...?

 

 

I've never heard any feminist ever claim they know the secret to making all women happy, so I kinda wonder what your point is...?

 

 

 

If it's the latter, I got some bad news for you.    There's a lot of wild fetishes out there that don't seem to make sense and yet people are fond of them. Likewise, as someone who's fascinated with psychology, sex and sex psychology, I actually very FREQUENTLY discuss kinks with female friends, and I daresay 90% of them are submissive, another 8% are either and maybe 2% are dominant.

 

(...)

 

Anyways I've rambled quite a bit. If you don't think most women are submissive...? My advice? Go talk to them lulz. I'd actually ask my female friends to come and post here, but realistically I know no woman is going to feel comfortable admitting she's submissive to a bunch of strangers in an online community.  

 

Oh, and if you happen to be interested in a woman that's into bondage, go to the UK. Seriously, I dunno how a fetish ended up practically being cultural (I assume the men like it as well, and that KiA mod who lost his position and got smeared was an example of a UK guy liking it), but by god I've yet to meet a british woman who wasn't crazy about that stuff...You can learn a lot from actually talking to women.  

 

 

As a practicing member of the local BDSM community, I really don't appreciate being lectured on the prevalence of kinks in the human population by someone whose interest in the matter is purely theoretical and hasn't been pursued with academic rigour.

 

Thank you for your understanding.

Edited November 20, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[kirottu]

Excellent article about games journalism corruption:

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/11/gamergate-ben-kuchera-and-the-life-and-nepotism-of-game-journo-pros/

[Meshugger]

Excellent article about games journalism corruption:

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/11/gamergate-ben-kuchera-and-the-life-and-nepotism-of-game-journo-pros/

 

Excellent article.

[Longknife]

 

Excellent article about games journalism corruption:

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/11/gamergate-ben-kuchera-and-the-life-and-nepotism-of-game-journo-pros/

 

Excellent article.

 

 

Excellent post.

[Meshugger]

Thank you!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Thank you!

Excellent gratitude.

[Namutree]

 

Thank you!

Excellent gratitude.

 

Excellent observation.

[Longknife]

Need to call someone soon so just responding to these two since they're quick, and I'll respond to the rest later:

 

*squint* I don't think social darwinism is the philosophy we should build our society around.

Nor was I suggesting it was. Social darwinism has multiple meanings and stances; hell, Darwinism itself is often misintepreted with people applying various definitions to "fittest" while Darwin meant "that most capable of adapting to the setting." Social darwinism has at time fueled the idea of eugenics for example, which is absolute nonsense as that denies a person the opportunity to adapt, and therefore it reflects society being bigoted rather than seeking out the fittest.

   I meant it in a sense that I consider Darwin's teachings to be a part of reality. Things survive and thrive where they do because they adapted to their setting best. It's as simple as if you know you've got a corrupt boss who promotes people based on his personal opinion of them and you know he's a big fan of basketball, you are best adapted to your workplace if you slime your way up and talk him up about basketball for a promotion. Does that mean you're best suited for the job? No, but in the context of that company you are more adapted to the workings of the company than your co-workers who don't get promoted.

  What I was highlighting is how (and again I'm not saying trying to rebel against a social structure is universally bad) many of the times these feminists involved with GG speak up, it merely sounds as though they're whining about something they don't like while incapable of accepting things they don't like do exist. Oftentimes what we get are nothing but complaints rather than working plans to fix it. It's akin to there being a delicious orange at the top of a tall tree, and instead of working up a plan to get that delicious orange, they whine, point at it and proclaim what bull**** it is that we cannot get the delicious orange. Adapt. Get used to eating berries instead, come up with a working plan to get the orange. Do SOMETHING. Instead they often seem to want to just have it handed to them, OR their only solution is to cut down the tree that grew the orange in such a way that will crush the nearby berry bush. I consider the solutions (or lack thereof) childish and a sign they've failed to adapt to society.

 

We've all had that painful moment where we realize the world isn't perfect and has injustices, but we move on. They apparently don't, and in their complaints, even partake in some injustices of their own. Perhaps they HAVE adapted, but adapted in the sense they learned to copy all the unfair aspects they so loathed...

 

But point is that overall, and this next part/question and the bolded below is relevant to this:
 

 

 

I've never heard any feminist ever claim they know the secret to making all women happy, so I kinda wonder what your point is...?

 

 

Then what exactly is the point and goal of feminism? If it's not for universal improvement, why bother?

 

It's essentially an opinion on how to improve things for a very specific group of people. Spoiler alert: every group of people on planet earth has an opinion on how to improve things for their own group of people, but we do not adopt said opinions until they prove overwhelmingly helpful. As I said before, many feminist views will hinder as many people as they help or merely move the problems onto the shoulders of another group.

  And yet there's this entitled attitude. There's this entitled attitude that anyone who disagrees with their opinion is wrong and needs to change who they are. This is seriously out of touch with reality as it's so self-centered, egotistical and doesn't seem to acknowledge the reality of how much of a pipe dream that is that all of society would suddenly change themselves to match their opinion UNLESS provided with good arguments.
   But they do not provide good arguments. They spout slander and call people names and expect that to change people's minds. That's exactly why I refer to them as childish, spoiled, entitled and incapable of adapting, because the very plan they utilize is so outrageously out of place it's absolute MADNESS to think it would work.

 

 

 

And once again just for clarity, I'm referring to the feminist group GG and/or Shirtgate is encountering, as that's the group this is relevant to. Emma Watson for example is a proud feminist but she's done nothing wrong so I have no reason to apply any of this to her, and likewise Sommers is a feminist who directly opposes this group of feminism I'm attacking.

[Blarghagh]

I am very disappointed in how this thread has gone in my absence. What does BDSM have to do with anything? Also, for those confused about redpilling, it's simple:

 

 

It has nothing to do with those ridiculous bastards at Return of the Kings (that website is as stupid as any radfem moron complaining about a shirt) other than the fact they consider their ridiculous nonsense to be such. You can redpill someone on any subject and they can have varying levels of truth. Any wikileak for example can be considered a redpill, but so can any conspiracy theory. In the case of #GamerGate it's about showing evidence about nepotism and corruption in games media and the industry. It's up to that person to decide whether it falls closer to the former than the latter.

 

Anyway, I really enjoyed that article on how modern feminism is in danger of becoming toxic other than come on, way too late, of course it's toxic. It's as stupid a debate as whether gamers are toxic. They're on the internet.

Edited November 20, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[Hurlshort]

So...do we have an example of an ethical game journalism site?  Shouldn't the Gamergate movement be pushing for people to start using those sites?

 

 

I'm curious how much Kotaku's traffic has changed during this whole event.  Sadly my guess would be that it has increased.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So...do we have an example of an ethical game journalism site?  Shouldn't the Gamergate movement be pushing for people to start using those sites?

The Escapist and IGN(yes, that IGN) have recently reworked their ethics policies and have been deemed acceptable. TechRaptor, NicheGamer, and Gather Your Party seem to be shown some love as well.

 

I'm curious how much Kotaku's traffic has changed during this whole event.  Sadly my guess would be that it has increased.

Last I saw, Gawker was up, Kotaku slightly declined, and Gamusutra took a nosedive. However, take into account Gawker is considered "toxic" to advertisers, so less money but more views may not be beneficial for them. Which IMO is justified, as Gawker is a site that is morally repugnant.

[Walsingham]

Slightly curveball thought:

 

In military history you have the concept of tactical, operational, and strategic.

 

Back in the day you just had tactical and strategic. You get your men, get some sharp sticks, and beat the enemy in a battle.

 

However, as the size of societies increased it became impossible to beat all the enemy in one day, or even several days. World War 1 was the point where this was proven.

 

What came out of WW1 was a consciousness of operational art. Stitching the battles together to achieve step changes along the way to beating the enemy.

 

Now the relevance is that many social justice issues are treated like those big moustache generals treated war. "Get angry, lads. Fight everywhere like crazy, and we'll win."

 

I put forward the idea that this is just as bollocks in terms of public culture as it was in military terms. You can't 'win' or 'lose' the contest of ideas due to a single issue unless the argument is so completely foolish as to be emblematic. And even then it is still only one in a series of arguments. I'm thinking in military terms of Stalingrad, and in cultural terms of the WMD justification for the invasion of Iraq.

 

In this instance all the sound and fury is as pointless as the first battle of Ypres. Millions of man-hours wasted at keyboards to no purpose.

 

Not sure where to go with this next.

[Keyrock]

 

So...do we have an example of an ethical game journalism site?  Shouldn't the Gamergate movement be pushing for people to start using those sites?

The Escapist and IGN(yes, that IGN) have recently reworked their ethics policies and have been deemed acceptable. TechRaptor, NicheGamer, and Gather Your Party seem to be shown some love as well.

 

I'm not sure if Destructoid has formally changed policy or not, but they've been consistently disclosing pertinent information as of late.  I personally thought that site got a whole heck of a lot better once Jim Sterling left (that was well before GamerGate began).  I'm not sure if some people had issues with Dale North (I personally didn't), but he's gone too now.

[Blarghagh]

Yeah the Escapist has become one of my go-to places. Shame about Movie Bob being there, though. What a douche, deliberately antagonizing people to make the situation worse.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

It has nothing to do with those ridiculous bastards at Return of the Kings (that website is as stupid as any radfem moron complaining about a shirt) other than the fact they consider their ridiculous nonsense to be such. 

 

 

Like it or not, "the redpill movement" is a name co-opted by "the manosphere".

 

I mean, okay, you can use it in any sense you want to, but the original question was "what do I mean by 'redpiller terminology'", and the answer is "the terminology you're likely to encounter on r/RedPill, the number one site google brings up when searching for 'redpill'".

Edited November 20, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid